Vanagon EuroVan
Previous (more recent) messageNext (less recent) messagePrevious (more recent) in topicNext (less recent) in topicPrevious (more recent) by same authorNext (less recent) by same authorPrevious page (October 2002, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:08:15 -0400
Reply-To:   Wade Shen <swade@UMIACS.UMD.EDU>
Sender:   Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:   Wade Shen <swade@UMIACS.UMD.EDU>
Subject:   Re: Turbo Diesel Power and Economy - global efficiency Q?
Comments:   To: Joachim Preiss <jp0815@EARTHLINK.NET>
In-Reply-To:   <KDEFIMDKMLDACJCKCOGIIEDECHAA.jp0815@earthlink.net>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Right. Generally diesels with their higher fuel efficiencies produce less CO2 and other greenhouse equivalents. Unfortunately, their smog emissions are pretty bad and in urban environments this leads to low-level ozone build up and poor air quality.

The EPA ratings are somewhat arbitrary because they are based on certain assumptions about driving patterns (45% city/55% highway), but they are a good basis for comparison, because they apply the same standard for all cars over many years.

In Europe and in Canada, the GHG emmissions are weighted with more import than in the US, but then again, we use more coal-fired power plants than either of those areas, so we'd better make up for our carbon emmissions in other ways.

wade

-----Original Message----- From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf Of Joachim Preiss Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:53 PM To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Subject: Re: Turbo Diesel Power and Economy - global efficiency Q?

EPA ratings may be arbitrary. TDI engines are among the worst in EPA's statistics, even worse than any 10mpg guzzler, although their low fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are matched only by ultralight cars and hybrids. In Europe reducing greenhouse gas emissions is considered very important, besides the fact that expensive fuel calls for better gasmileage. TDI engines however emit particles which can cause smog. Technology is available today to filter those diesel particles which are also considered carcinogenic from the exhaust, but car manufacturers (VW!) refuse to install them in their cars.

Greenhouse gas emissions hurt globally, particles locally.

In your 2 ton Westy you can probably achieve 20-25mpg with a clean burning modern I4 gasoline engine, or 35mpg with a TDI. Your choice.

Joachim '85 Westfalia 1.9WBX 18mpg '00 golf 1.9 TDI 45mpg over 45k miles

|> -----Original Message----- |> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On |> Behalf Of Wade Shen |> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 22:29 |> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM |> Subject: Re: Turbo Diesel Power and Economy - global eficiency Q? |> |> |> Check out www.fueleconomy.gov This site has information about EPA |> fuel efficiencies and relative polution as gauged by the EPA. |> |> Just taking a quick look, the Jetta 1.9 TDI vs Jetta 1.8 T, The TDI |> emmits 3.4 tons less greenhouse gas (in co2 equiv.) per year, for the

|> same body and transmission. However, the smog forming emissions are |> much worse for the TDI (and generally for diesels). |> |> wade |> |> -----Original Message----- |> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On |> Behalf Of Damon Campbell |> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:38 PM |> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM |> Subject: Re: Turbo Diesel Power and Economy - global eficiency Q? |> |> |> I am trying to debate the merits between several different engine |> conversions (although i don't really know why... my 1.9 is running |> like a champ). My main criteria is not a moderate HP increase |> (although an extra 15 or so would be great), but rather the reduction

|> of pollution to the world. So this question transcends (a bit) |> frank's lengthy analysis, although inspired by it. |> |> What combinations of fuel and engine produce the least amount of |> pollutants? In this question, i am including the impacts of actually

|> producing/transporting/etc. the fuel, as well. (i remember someone |> mentioning this a while back, but can't find it in the archives). |> How does natural gas, or possibly even fuel cells weigh in to the |> global-efficiency calc compared to your standard gas and diesel? It |> sounds like a simple TDi is a viable option for these criteria, but i

|> want to see even *more* numbers! :-) |> |> Thanks, |> -Damon |> |> Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM> wrote: |> And frankly, the highly efficient TDi is probably the most effective |> engine for the Vanagon. Turbo diesels are impressive, and the TDi |> technology even more so. |> |> Sorry for the soapbox, |> |> Frank Grunthaner |> |> '84 Westy |> |> |> --------------------------------- |> Do you Yahoo!? |> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.